whats your opinion?

[beergood]

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:19 PM - Edit history (2)

this is my argument against those that claim the average citizen is outgunned by the modern army.

its not about winning, its not losing that matters. "give me liberty, or give me death." all who bear arms against a tyrannical government will die, but we will not have lost.

should have included this earlier, this is just a thought experiment. i do not believe the US government is fascist, nor do i believe they will become so in the near future.

[TeddyR]

1. You die

You lose (generally speaking)

[beergood]

49. my point was

that it is better to die on your feet with a rifle in hand than to live under some Orwellian type of government.

[DashOneBravo]

52. That's mighty big talk.

But most disappear when it comes time to do the bleeding.

There is an enlistment option called 11Bravo. You can go down to Sand Hill, Ft Benning GA and learn all about rifles and the Spirit of the Bayonet.

[beergood]

54. "most disappear when it comes time to do the bleeding."

sound like something i would do.

im not a fighter. i prefer to talk thing out or just walk away.

as the great king Arthur once said

[TeddyR]

59. Oh

I agree, at least in theory. Unfortunately, most people don't think that way.

[COLGATE4]

2. And where do you find this 'tyrannical government'

you are prepared to give your life to fight?

[Straw Man]

4. Here's a thought experiment.

Imagine that Gore had refused to concede in 2000. Now imagine that W declared himself the winner and imposed martial law. How would you have felt then about tyrannical governments?

Those who pooh-pooh the Second Amendment on the theory that "the average citizen is outgunned by the modern army" are rooting for the Death Star.

[COLGATE4]

6. So the answer is there is none. All the rest of the 2A

breast beating about 'fighting the tyrannical government' is mental masturbation.

[Straw Man]

7. Myopic much?

So the answer is there is none. All the rest of the 2A

breast beating about 'fighting the tyrannical government' is mental masturbation.

"Because there is not one now, there neither could nor will ever be one." Does that about sum up your response?

[COLGATE4]

8. I prefer to deal with real problems today

rather than with imaginary ones. I stopped playing soldier when I turned 13.

[Straw Man]

12. Chalk up another one ...

I prefer to deal with real problems today

rather than with imaginary ones.

... who thinks short-sightedness and lack of imagination are virtues.

I stopped playing soldier when I turned 13.

Condescension duly noted and rejected. Rights don't exist for the purpose of "playing."

[COLGATE4]

13. Keep standing tall and protecting us from the

coming tyrannical government. All America is proud of you.

Feel better now?

[Straw Man]

14. When reasoned argument fails ...

... it's time for snark and snideness, the contemporary equivalent of sound and fury.

[beardown]

16. It can't happen here

Famous last words.

One of my co-workers is from the Urkraine. His real problems have changed considerably in the last few years and are indeed real problems.

Speaking of real problems, how real did you think the possibility of not only having Donald Trump as the repub presidential nominee, but as the presidential nominee leading Nazi salute rallies calling for violence against protesters?

[COLGATE4]

17. That's fascinating. I have family in Ukraine.

Ukraine and the US are two entirely different systems, so different as to not really even be comparable so no, what's happening in Ukraine - or Syria - or Sri Lanka doesn't keep me awake nights worrying about when it will happen here.

And no, I don't think Trump has the chance of a snowball in hell of being President of the U.S. although I confess to loathing him with every fiber of my being. But no, the sight of a few rag-tag knuckle-dragging morons giving him the Nazi salute doesn't turn his rallies into "Nazi salute rallies". We Democrats have to be careful not to engage in the fantastic rhetoric that characterizes our opponents.

[beardown]

23. My co worker would disagree with you.

He and his step father sure thought they were very stable and western like nation before all hell broke loose. Certainly much closer to a western nation than Somalia, etc.

Several months ago, I thought that Trump had no chance in being in the lead of the GOP nomination this late in the campaign.

"Few" morons? He's running away with the nomination right now.

If you were as good as ignoring threats from guns as you appear to be Trump we wouldn't be having this discussion.

At least we are bonded by our mutual loathing of Trump. That's something to build on. Solidarity.

[COLGATE4]

28. I hate to tell you this but if your co-worker and his family

actually believed that they were living in a 'stable and western nation' in Ukraine I truly feel sorry for them. . Nobody in Europe and Russia ever actually believed that and Ukraine's brief history as an independent country confirms it. Yes, it was better than Somalia (which isn't saying much) but you could say the same about Slovenia, Albania, Serbia and a host of others.

As to my comment on the few morons, you're now moving the goal posts. The discussion was about "Fascist or Nazi rallies",the proof supposedly being a photo of four or five white supremacist goobers giving Trump the Hitler salute at one of his rallies. If you believe all (or even most of) Trump's supporters are like these morons you're igmoring the problem. Our real problem is that Trump has successfully mined the deep core of resentment and anger which is present among chiefly white men with less than a college education in our country right now. These are the people who feel left behind, 'screwed by the man' and who desperately want to feel better about themselves by feeling superior to somebody lower on the totem pole. I heard it best expressed by someone on DU the other day who said "Trump's followers like him because they believe that he's saying what they would be saying if they themselves were rich". You can't fix stupid but we have to beat it by all getting behind whoever the Democratic candidate is in November.

[beardown]

29. Not just a few.

Your own post seems to bolster what I'm saying. "core of resentment and anger". "feel left behind". "Screwed by the man...desperately want to feel superior to somebody lower...".

He incites violence at the rallies. His crowds have many incidents of getting forcible with non-Trumpers. His rallies and conduct of his supporters have emboldened the blatant racists to come out of the woodwork and wave their flags at the rallies.

How many neo-nazi flag wavers have been kicked out of his rallies compared to how many black reporters, etc.?

At the risk of hitting Goodwins' Law, there is a lot of comparisons between the early rise of the fascists in the late 20's and 30's to this current wave. While the current leader does not sport a short dark mustache he did make his rise from the media side much as El Duce did.

Per Urkraine, there's a gigantic difference between how stable and western they were before compared to how stable and western it is now and that cannot be denied.

Good postings. Keep up the good work.

[COLGATE4]

30. Trump is no Hitler. He is, however

a pretty decent imitation of Mussolini. Mussolini, the Father of Fascism, believed in the superiority of the State joined with and doing the bidding of big business. In that sense he's much less clownish and much more dangerous than comparing him to Hitler.

[TeddyR]

60. We actually don't have any idea what Trump might turn out to be

certainly a misogynist, perhaps (or even probably) a racist. What concerns me is the people who are in positions of power in Texas, or North Carolina, or wherever who think it is ok to openly discriminate against Muslims, or homosexuals, or anyone they disagree with, and encourage others to do the same. Ultimately that may (or even will) lead to violence.

[pablo_marmol]

32. Of course you are correct. It could *never* happen here.

[COLGATE4]

37. In theory anything is 'possible' so no one can

make such a categorical statement, including myself. But I really get a chuckle watching a bunch of overweight, middle age goobers carrying guns and playing soldier while dreaming that, when the revolution comes they will be the ones to step up and defy (and defeat) the U.S. military and thereby defeat the 'tyrannical government' . Sounds to me like they've seen Red Dawn too many times.

[gejohnston]

38. When I saw Red Dawn,

part of me wondered if it might have been a KGB funded propaganda film. It showed the American an Canadian militaries as being incompetent and local officials as being collaborators.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/23/912900/-
http://www.cracked.com/article_18812_5-reasons-red-dawn-secretly-subversive-anti-war-film.html

[COLGATE4]

39. It certainly did that. But I suppose it had to portray the

good guys' military as incompetent in order to make the plot line (teen age boys with bows overcome Spetnaz soldiers - all of Nebraska is saved) believable.

[pablo_marmol]

42. "But I really get a chuckle watching a bunch of overweight........"

Do you also get a chuckle out of folks who are so mentally deficient that they can't comprehend what a nightmare it would be for the government to have to deal with door-to-door fighting in the event of a mass uprising? Or is your scorn reserved for gun owners?

[COLGATE4]

43. No, but I do get a chuckle about people who spend

their lives worrying about things like' the government having to deal with door to door fighting in the event of a mass uprising.' Sounds like really bad late nite T.V. And no, my scorn isn't reserved for gun owners, although those who own their firepower in order to protect themselves from the big ol' gubmint do manage to earn quite a bit of it.

[pablo_marmol]

44. "No, but I do get a chuckle......."

And no, my scorn isn't reserved for gun owners.......

Pretty conflicted response if you ask me.

[COLGATE4]

45. Well, to be honest, no one asked you.

But now that you mention it, no, not conflicted at all. i find some of the "Red Dawn" crown to be just laughable, since if the day ever were to actually occur when all the things they claim to dread came to pass about 1/2 would be found hiding under their beds while the other 1/2 would probably have a heart attack the minute they were called upon to do anything more physical than go from the couch to the fridge for another cold one. But I am in fact scornful of those who are so threatened by their fellow citizens and life in general that they feel that can't leave their house without being armed. I wonder how they would fare if ever dropped into a country where there is actually real danger in the streets and surroundings? I suspect it woudn't be pretty.

[pablo_marmol]

46. "Well, to be honest, no one asked you."

LOL.......again with the infantile snark.

I happen to find the 'Red Dawn' crowd pretty laughable -- but no more laughable than people who swallow every lie the media feeds them re. the gun violence issue. Both are pretty pathetic in my book.

Buh bye!

[sarisataka]

9. The scene outside of a recent Donald Trump rally

January 2017?

[COLGATE4]

11. OK. And your point is what? That

Trump excites the low-information goobers? I can't stand Trump but I don't flagellate myself with visions of the Fourth Reich with Trumpenfuhrer Drumpf at the helm. Not gonna happen.

[sarisataka]

15. Simply noting that

Democracy is a very fragile form of government. The seeds of its destruction are inherent in the system.

Would the election of Trump trigger an armed revolution? Probably not but that isn't to say that he, or someone even worse, could come along and create a situation where the choices are fight or submit.

Also keep in mind if a candidate has the support of all below average intelligence voters, he already has 50% support.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. No one seeks to find tyrannical governments

It is when such governments find you that some decisions become necessary. I note from history that the US revolution in the 18th century did not begin until a protracted sequence of abuses and abrogations of colonist's rights had occurred. It is always that way with tyranny. It's only when common folks recognize that they have not much future in continuing under the existing system that revolution is accepted.

There will always be a balance to be struck between the general degree of freedom and the burden of government needed to help those who can't help themselves. In recognizing, the basic need of medical help everyone, the ACA brings an aspect of safety those who've fallen on hard times. As many members have noted here on DU, this system is not perfect and is mostly just a first step but it's a good one.

JFK said: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

One of the keys to government respect for the individual is that its armed agents view themselves as fellow citizens. The RKBA places the average person on the same level (of armament) with a soldier or a murderer. The type of weapon is not as important as equality the right delivers.

There will not be an engagement (or at least maybe only a very few) between our current government's military and our people. The equalizing factor of the RKBA is a foundation for that equality. It is not so much the prospect of tactical success as it is the premise for the current serviceman to view himself as a common citizen.

An infantryman will take a station because of his commitment to do his duty. But, more than his duty or his country, an infantryman will fight for his own life and lives of his brothers around him.

Everyone who serves in the military has accepted that his country may place him in harm's way. I can't see myself taking aim at such a fellow countrymen nor can I accept the idea that a fellow countryman, so prepared to chance his safety for the rest of us, will ever take aim at me.

[DashOneBravo]

55. That's a great post.

And I'm stealing all of that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Thanks, please do and make some of the needed corrections to the grammar.

I am considering an OP including most of those points and a few others.

A good quote I found recently:
"The one mode or the other in dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them respect for himself; while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his subordinates, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself." – LTG John M. Schofield, 1879

Not especially relevant but one I haven't seen before.

Thanks again.

[DashOneBravo]

57. Check your inbox Sunday.

Minor suggestions . 😃

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. thanks n/t

[Travis_0004]

3. Somebody will say

Countless wars have shown that and armed population is enough to bog down our army. Vietnam, iraq and Afghanistan have all shown that an armed population can cause major issues. We dont have RPG's but the thought of everybody possibly being amred is enough to slow down an occulying force.

[ileus]

5. There is not one freedom we should give up just to feel good...that includes the 2A.

As for me and my family we'll always be progressive on all rights.

[beevul]

10. It isn't the army that an armed citizenry would be fighting. N/T

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. I consider that common argument, while largely true when applicable, to be irrelevant.

I can't easily conceive of a genuinely plausible scenario in which any legitimate insurgency (and not just a few cranks fleeing "innawoods" with their rifles to "rebel against the tyrants&quot in which the US military would remain intact. If there really is a causus belli so great that large numbers of citizens are willing to take up arms against the government, then there is no way the military doesn't fragment. There are countless examples of modern civil wars in which there are military units on both sides, and the rebel military originated with defections from the government military.

In such a scenario, both sides' militaries would be massively compromised in their ability to field modern, complex weapons and communications systems, the core of a modern military's advantage over civilians (soldier-level arms aren't very disparate). Things like aircraft, heavy artillery, etc. are hard to keep up and running when units are decimated by defection/sabotage, logistics capabilities are under attack, etc. Armed civilians, already a problem in asymmetric warfare (hello Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), become more important under such scenarios.

[beergood]

50. "hello Vietnam"

wasn't that a movie starring Robin Williams?

back to being serious, you make a good point.

[Eleanors38]

19. "Outgunned:" Vietnam, Algeria, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam again, Cuba,...

It's no wonder the U.S. gets bogged down in wars where the "enemy" are insurrectionists with small weapons. We never learn anything from these conflicts.

And that includes quite a few controller/banners who claim to be sorta liberal.

[Big_Mike]

20. my opinion is that:

1. Mostly agree

2. Strongly agree with your user name: beer good.

[GreydeeThos]

21. There is an old military adage

Amateurs think tactics; professionals think logistics

In the unlikely scenario that the citizens of the United States enter into an armed confrontation with the citizens of the United States that make up the military, there is a part of the conflict that extends off the battlefield. For the military to attack the home front would mean the military is also attacking their own source of resupply. Military personnel also have to have something to go home to.

There is also another adage: "The Department of War wins battles, but it is the Supply Department that wins wars."
Where is the military going to get their bombs, bullets and benzene if they blow up "back home"?

[stone space]

22. My opinion is that we should mail Dildos to these Ammosexual Losers.

That way they can go fuck themselves.

whats your opinion?

this is my argument against those that claim the average citizen is outgunned by the modern army.

its not about winning, its not losing that matters. "give me liberty, or give me death." all who bear arms against a tyrannical government will die, but we will not have lost.

[Lurks Often]

24. It's sick and disturbing that you always associate sex with firearms

[stone space]

31. Cost a small fortune in postage.

[Lurks Often]

33. Typical non answer from you

Here's hoping there will be campus carry in Iowa in 2016

[stone space]

34. We won't let you destroy education in Iowa. (nt)

[Lurks Often]

35. Here's hoping there will be campus carry in Iowa in 2016!

[GGJohn]

36. More than likely there will be and there really is nothing you can do about it. eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Still waiting to hear how education was 'destroyed' in Utah, Washington, and Colorado

They've had campus carry for years.

The disinterested reader will have noted a lot of shouting and handwaving from your
interlocutor- but no actual evidence...

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. "We"? Was there a mouse in your pocket as you typed that?

[DonP]

25. Great idea! It would be impressive to finally see a gun control fan actually DO something

I mean something besides just impotent whining online about how bad gun owners are.

So get out the checkbook and be sure to show us lots of pictures of your mailings to those Evil "Ammosexuals".

But hurry, before you go on vacation again.

[sarisataka]

26. Back so soon?

Well in the interest of re-starting on a positive note, here is a link where you can start:

http://www.adameve.com/

[beergood]

51. "My opinion is that we should mail Dildos to these Ammosexual Losers."

not necessary, my boyfriend is more than sufficient. no toy could ever replace the real thing.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

27. Now I know where to shop.

The scenario we imagine when discussing the 'tyranny' element of the Second Amendment has happened. The specifics that come to mind are...

1. Gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina

2. Inland checkpoints set up by Border Patrol within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders.

3. The heavily armed cops during Ferguson, many of whom pointed loaded ARs at civilians

Mind you... these were all done by officers/agents wearing law enforcement uniforms, not military uniforms.

The relatively few members of the military that are allowed - at all - to enforce laws on domestic soil (usually Army or Air National Guard) always do so as a subordinate command structure to (non military) law enforcement authorities - and only do so upon approval from the highest levels of government.

Local authorities can refuse to be aided by the military, in that case, the soldiers (or airmen) have no choice other than to pack their toys and go home. More often than not, the soldiers/airmen are unarmed and are performing search and rescue, medical or supply tasks only.

The stressful scenarios listed above had mixed outcomes:

In the case of the old lady who got a beat down, fighting back (or a family member doing so on her behalf) would have resulted in death.

In the case of the somewhat verbose college girl who got tasered in New York by Border Patrol agents, armed resistance would have resulted in death.

In the case of Ferguson, a group of Oath Keepers did, in effect offer armed resistance, and things went peacefully.

I summary, if you are going to offer resistance, be well organized, be clearly identified (signs, patches hats, etc) , keep your mouths shut, obey the law, represent the constitution, smile a lot and make friends with the locals. Offer to have a well-spoken representative meet with reporters. Have cameras around. Lots of them.

Finally.... if you are dealing with rogue law enforcement - it does happen (rogue military is a fantasy) you will probably not win out on the streets.

BUT YOU WILL HAVE YOUR DAY IN COURT. Live to see that day.


If you do all that, you can leave your weapons at home (which is what I heartily recommend in these instances)

It's called civil disobedience and it will always work.

[DashOneBravo]

47. IMO ..

It's never going to happen. There will never be large groups of milita fighting in the streets or countryside.

And they would not be fighting the military on US soil.

It would be Feds and local LEOs. Personally I think if 12 people who were trained and willing to do some of the stuff we saw in Iraq that our LEOs for the most part are unprepared.

In Iraq they targeted police recruitment centers, family members, schools, markets etc. Look what that Dorner guy did by himself.

[beergood]

53. thank you all

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

for your responses.

made for good reading.

[Paladin]

62. So we're back to talking about tyrannical governments, now that trump is out?

Plenty of talk about tyranny by gun enthusiasts before trump's reign, and now afterwards. That speaks volumes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Repeated use of vague innuendoes against a group you don't like speaks volumes, as well

None of it flattering to you:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=209911

So now that trump's gone, that "well regulated militia" thing comes back into play.

You gun rights people sure were quiet when the most dangerous, authoritarian regime in our nation's history was in power.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=209912

You gun rights people sure were quiet..." About what? What do *you* think ought to have been said?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=209913

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205349#post4

Yeah, one helluva job RKBA is doing, combatting the onset of tyranny in the U.S.

I don't see pro-gun militants willing to fight for jack shit, much less against the most tyranny-prone administration in this country's history. To the contrary---the RKBA crowd helped install the trump regime, and they seem content to see it play itself out, full-length...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205349#post10

friendly_iconoclast

Response to Paladin (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 02:07 AM

10. The US doesn't *quite* have a totally degenerate government (for now, anyway), so...
...what were those you dub "pro-gun militants" supposed to do? Be specific.

The disinterested reader will note that the question was studiously ignored back then,
so I'll ask again:

Were we supposed to start an armed rebellion, or is this just another complaint disguised as a question
about people you don't like?

Better yet: How about you just spit the mealies out of your mouth and say what you really mean.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. This thread moved to the top because a troll kicked it.

The troll has been nuked by MIRT. Apparently you're the only non-troll bringing this up.